Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

KURT PEATS: Does Somebody Have to Die Before the Cops do Something? ... or ... Why Don’t You Go and Catch Some Real Criminals?


We live in a topsy-turvy world.   

Watching the evening news simply confirms that the chimpanzees are indeed in charge of guarding the bananas.  I’ve been a police officer for a quarter of a century and have been called upon to try and settle disputes that took many years to develop.  In fact, most disputes are far more complex than what a 30-second sound bite can possibly convey.   


Did you ever wonder why the cops didn’t act when it is blatantly obvious that a person or a group of persons were breaking the law?  


The job of the police is complicated at the best of times. The officer is called upon to deal with both criminal and civil matters, and sometimes these matters are occurring simultaneously.   On a Saturday night, after dealing with the mud, the blood and the beer, (the criminal law side of the house), the officer will eventually deal with the ensuing family break-up, child custody issues (the civil law side of the house) and the like.

Let me draw back the curtain so that you an take a peek at the various machinations that goes on behind the scenes.

Scenario One:
Someone gets drunk and then decides that he is Rocky and tries to take out the bouncer at the local hotel.  The Queen’s Cowboys are called and Rocky is immediately arrested and spends the night in the Crowbar Hotel ... Easy peasy.   

You break a criminal law and the powers of arrest are clearly defined.  In defining these powers, the Criminal Code of Canada also gives the officer legal authority to use “…as much force as is necessary” in order to effect the arrest.

The police deal primarily with criminal matters, things like assault, theft, break and enters, impaired driving and the like.

It’s when the police are called upon to intervene in “civil matters” the rules are not so clear and in fact, are almost always non-existent.  Most questions arise when police do not, or refuse to take action during high profile events.


Scenario Two (three and four):
Why are “tent cities” allowed to grow on public land that are “obviously” against multiple bylaws?  

Why can workers, who are on strike, block/impede traffic on the road to their workplaces for days on end and the company has to go to court in order to get them removed?   

Why can protestors block a proposed pipeline even after a court injunction is issued?

In civil matters, the police are usually left out of the equation.  But…when police are called to help out, the courts will have to give them direction and guidance (remember...the rules relating to police authority on the civil side of the house are mostly non-existent).

When there is a civil dispute, let’s say between a pipeline company and protestors, this is the usual process that is used to resolve the matter.

The company goes to court and gets an “injunction” against the protestors.  An injunction is “an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that compels a party to do or refrain from specific acts.”  A party that fails to comply with the injunction can be fined, held in contempt, or imprisoned (all to be determined at a later court date).

Once the injunction is issued, it usually gives a set time for compliance.  If there is no compliance, then the company goes back to court and gets an “Enforcement Order.”  This order then authorizes the police to enforce the injunction at their discretion and time of choosing.   

It might take the police a week or two to get enough resources to deal with the matter, to develop a plan and to execute it.  In very rare occasions will the courts issue an injunction and enforcement order at the same time.  This is only done in matters of life and death, weapons present or some other exigent circumstance.

For every rule in law there are multiple exceptions to the rule.  That is why there is no cookie cutter approach to the handling matters of civil disagreement or dispute.  Each side in the dispute lawyers up and face-off in court.  Each side will make their point and counterpoint in hopes that the judge will rule in their favor.

The body of criminal law, civil law, case law and precedent that guides the interaction between these disciplines is vast and limitless.  That is why these laws are always evolving in interpretation, in deployment, in effect and in force. 

That’s how I see it from my side of the fence .... Kurt Peats


Kurt Peats retired from the RCMP in 2011 after serving 25 years with the Force. 
He makes his home in Dawson Creek, and has been married to his junior high school sweetheart for 33.  His oldest daughter is a 9-1-1 dispatcher for the RCMP in Edmonton, and his youngest daughter works at the Louisiana Pacific plant in Dawson Creek. 

In 2013 he ran as a BC Conservative candidate in Peace River South, losing out to the winning candidate by just over 1200 votes.

Comments

  1. This is a very GOOD explanation of the law and in my opinion is the way it should be. There must be check and balances for police during dealings with first nations and those commonly known as tree huggers. The days of running rough shod over protesters is a sad part of a tainted history in Canada.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

GORDON F. D. WILSON: When The Trick Masquerades as The Treat

Thirty-seven years ago, Halloween 1987, I became the leader of the BC Liberal Party.   British Columbia was badly polarized. Social Credit held one side and the NDP the other. It had been twelve years, 1975, since Liberal MLAs Garde Gardom, Pat McGeer, and Alan Williams had walked away from their party to join Social Credit, one year after the lone Progressive Conservative MLA Hugh Curtis had abandoned his party to sit with Bill Bennett, the son and heir apparent to long-serving BC Premier, WAC Bennett.   An unwritten agreement by the biggest Canadian political shareholders, the federal Liberals and Conservatives, decided that if British Columbia was to remain a lucrative franchise from a revenue perspective, they couldn’t risk splitting the electoral vote and electing the real enemy, the NDP, so no resources would be used to finance either a Liberal or Conservative party provincially.   “There are two sides to every street,” I was told by a very prominent Canadian businessman who cont

FORSETH: As a BC Conservative member, and campaign worker, I will again state that the fact these errors were found -- AND brought to light BY Elections BC -- shows the system IS working

Sadly, two and a half weeks after the BC provincial election campaign, those who want to undermine our political process are still at.  PLUS, we also have one who doesn’t even live in our country, never mind our province. I speak of the buffoon running for President of the United States, who has poisoned the well when it comes to faith in the electoral process. Just today alone, comments such as the following, were being made of posts that I shared online: ... all the votes they keep finding has just favoured NDP on in all critical ridings and soon they will flip another riding in favour of NDP, Come on. ... Elections BC has ridiculed British Columbians, and I no longer have confidence or trust in their process and competence regarding the results Then there are others online, with comments like these – who are claiming fraud in the October 19th election: ... Who is the oversight for Elections BC? They should be investigated for election fraud! ... Fraudulent election ... should be red

“With the talent and dedication of this caucus we will hold David Eby to account for his government’s out of control spending and ongoing failures in healthcare, public safety and addictions" — John Rustad

Today, John Rustad, Leader of the Conservative Party of British Columbia, proudly unveiled his shadow cabinet, a dynamic team of talented individuals ready to hold David Eby’s disastrous government accountable and present a strong alternative vision for British Columbia. “ Our shadow cabinet is a diverse and experienced group, committed to restoring prosperity, public safety, and affordability for every British Columbian ,” said Rustad. “ With experts in every field, we are focused on delivering real solutions for the challenges our province faces .” Rustad emphasized the historic appointment of Aaliya Warbus as House Leader. The shadow cabinet reflects the Conservative Party’s vision to build a brighter future for British Columbia. The appointments are as follows: Leadership Positions : Aaliya Warbus – House Leader Bruce Banman – Whip Sheldon Claire – Deputy Whip Portfolios : Tony Luck – Municipal Affairs and Local Government Sharon Hartwell – Rural Communities and Rural Development I

Labels

Show more